Re: PIE meaning of the Germanic dental preterit

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2008-02-26 23:13, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > I already quoted the inscription Brian in one of my previous

messages:

> >
> > "69. Novling Fibula (around 200)
> >
> > bidawarijaR talgidai
> > "
> >
> > I also added that the text was confirmed by Other Scholars too.
> >
> > It would be better to read all the messages first, before to ask
> > yourself:
> >
> > "I wonder whether that's the chape whose inscription is read
> > mariha aala makija"
>
> Brian is absolutely right. He meant the Vimose sword-chape

inscription,

> not the one you had quoted. Since Antonsen's reading of <mariha> as

a

> preterite (+<marida(i)>) seems to have been wrong, that reduces the
> number of examples of <-dai> to two at best and I still have my

doubts

> about one of them (but have no access to Antonsen right now).

<talgidai>

> from the Nøvling fibula is at any rate the only example quoted in
> discussions of the Germanic weak preterite.
>
> Piotr
>

I already told you that this is the single one reflecting -dai
(and Brian really made a confusion reagrding the inscription that I
made reference)

But the interpretation of -ai is that count here not the fact that is
the single one.


Next against the 'haplology theory' I will quote Sverdrup (in
response to Loewe):

1. The haplology seems to happen as an accidental happening rather
than a regular phenomenon"
[This means: it could be, it coudn't be...]

2. Germanic has very few attested cases of unquestionable haplology.
More specific he accepts only OHG swibogo versus MHG swebeboge

3. A long vowel does not prevent haplology
ex: Latin media:lem < medi:-dia:lem

Marius